invoices_text2pay_invoice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description should clarify the side effects. 'Create & Send' implies mutation, but it doesn't state what happens to existing invoices (it can update via 'id'), whether it sends immediately, or what the response contains. No behavioral detail beyond the minimal verb.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a two-word fragment, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks essential structure and fails to front-load any useful information. There is no attempt to convey purpose, scope, or context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 27 parameters, 9 required, and nested objects, the description must provide context on required fields, examples, or behavior. It provides none. The output schema is absent, so the description is the only source of outcome details, and it's missing entirely. Completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high (85%), so the parameters are largely documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics, but per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't compensate for any gaps, but it's not required to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create & Send' is vague and does not specify the resource (invoice is implied by the name, but the description alone lacks it). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like invoices_create_invoice or invoices_send_invoice, and the schema's optional 'id' suggests it can also update, which is not mentioned. The purpose is unclear and under-specified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many invoice-related siblings (create, send, update), but the description gives no indication of when this combined create-and-send tool is appropriate or when to prefer a separate create/send. Completely lacking usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.